ma_testfandomcom-20200214-history
Talk:The Royale (episode)
Episode comments *comment-one of the best episode of TNG I ever saw. Just think of how this episode would have been on TOS with the following parts in TNG played by the following: Riker played by Kirk;Data played by Spock; Worf played by McCoy. *PS the next best TNG I saw were & . :Interesting thought, there are many who think "The Royale" was lacking in the interest department (Many TOS outings like this one involved more of a climax dealing with the "godlike aliens" responsible). :In the future, comments like these would be better placed on our message area, unless you are directly mentioning information that is being added or removed from the article. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk Tobin? Why does it say Tobin was in Facets? Wasn't he in "Playing God"? Tiberius 07:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC) :I think your thinking of "Arjin," the trill initiate. Tobin Dax was a past Dax host, though I can understand how you misunderstood based on the odd wording here... which I shall now fix. - AJ Halliwell 07:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Temp Don't they have a method to make a lower absolute zero in he 23rd century? *no? absolute zero is simply absolute zero, there isn't anything colder than the complete absence of heat--[[User:Meatball|'meat']]*ball 19:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC) **But although Absolute Zero is the point where all molecules stop movement, perhaps in the 23rd-24th century, scientists formulated/innovated a way to throw molecules in reverse. If we figured out how to drive cars, ships, and any mode of transport in reverse, then we may someday figure out how to move molecules in reverse. -- 21:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC) ***Movement in another direction is still movement. The direction has no bearing, molecules move in many directions, not a straight line. 16:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Temperature Statement Dubbing Sometimes, when actors have a thick accent or they say something wrong (or if they cuss and the show airs on a network), their lines get dubbed over with a more suitable-sounding line, so why didn't Paramount dub over Geordi's statement about the impossible temperature??? ---- As soon as the producers realized the mistake, couldn't they have asked Geordi to repeat the line, but change it to "-291ºF" or "-261ºC" and use the recording to dub over the mistake? -- 19:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC) :maybe they have a new low temperature for absolute zero. After all, it does take place 300 years in the future.--Babaganoosh 20:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC) ::Yes, and if we start here, adding that, strangely, a mistake wasn't corrected by dubbing, we could add the same to many other episodes where somebody flunked a line, pronounced a word incorrectly, identified a species by the wrong name, got planet numbers mixed up etc. It's only worth mentioning if such a mistake WAS corrected by dubbing, like with changing to Constellation class in . --Jörg 20:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC) :::If you could go to a mirror and vocalize the following statements: :::*"261ºC" :::*"291ºC" :::...do the lip movements resemble each other well? I think they do. I understand when episode producers are concerned about matching lip movements when dubbing over a mistake, but I believe the lip movements when stating the above two temperatures match well enough, so they ought to dub it over if they haven't already. -- 21:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC) I realize that there is much contention regarding whether or not this "nitpick" should be included in the article. Isn't there someway to factually point out the error, as is done on many other episode pages, without applying criticism as well? Again, other pages point out when Troi trips over the Turbolift door, or a sound boom is seen in a mirror, why should this mistake be any different? --Erulin9 13:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)– Erulin9 13:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC) ::::The nitpicks policy states that we do not make comparisons to the real world. If you notice them in other places, those should probably be removed. That said, such a reference could possibly be mentioned if someone who worked on the show commented on it or(as said above) if there was an effort to correct it.--31dot 14:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC) :The point is, our episode pages were tending to become long lists of notes like this. If there is an article about the temperature scales, that article might note that the temperature scale used in Star Trek differs from how we would expect it to be used in real life -- but see how that has more to do with the article about temperature, and less to do with the article about the episode? The temperature is defined there in that article, but the episode is not defined by its use of jargon. The article for the episode is defined for its references and its summary. -- Captain MKB 15:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Fermats last theorem Actually, Fermats last theorem has been proven by the now famous mathematician Andrew Wiles. See the Wikipedia site for more info, there's even a reference to this episode here. Link: Fermats last theorem on Wikipedia – 18:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Pulaski Why was Pulaski credited for this episode? I don't remember where she appeared in it. Federation 06:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC) :Here you go. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC) ::Aha! The conference room. Got it! Federation 08:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC) :Correct. The cryogenic process would be nearly instantaneous. DynV 08:55, April 29, 2011 (UTC) Removed nit I've removed the following nit: :During the dice game, Data gets himself into a position where he need to roll a 6 (as a sum result of 2 dice), instead of his original goal of 7. Riker worriedly complains: "but the probability of making a 6 is '''no greater' than that of rolling a 7". He is technically correct, but would have been more accurate to state "the probability of making a 6 is explicitly less than that of 7" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dice#Probability). Given the context, one would expect him to use the accurate phrasing: it better supports his expressed worry.'' Pointing out an error is one thing (since he was "technically correct", it's not a mistake). Analyzing it critically is another. This is an encyclopedia, not a nitpicker's guide. --From Andoria with Love 04:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC) ::If Riker had said this, I'd had thought he was going out of character! Federation 02:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC) ::::*''This episode contains one of the most severe (in scientific terms) factual errors in the Star Trek series. Two minutes into the episode (thirty seconds in some versions), La Forge claims that the surface temperature of a planet is "minus 291 degrees Celsius"; however, this is colder than absolute zero (–273 °C), and is thus scientifically impossible. The apparent cause of this error is that the original script gave the temperature in Fahrenheit; the unit was changed to Celsius before filming, but the number was not adjusted. '' :::It's a nitpick. — Morder 06:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC) ::::Removed another statement regarding this nit as of today.--31dot 20:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC) :::::Once more today. --TribbleFurSuit 19:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC) ::::Once more.--31dot 21:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC) :One more removed nitpick entry: ::* When Data says at the blackjack table that "The odds favor standing pat," he is incorrect. The player has 13 against the dealer's 10, and the correct play would be to hit. Tom 22:12, December 13, 2011 (UTC) Inspiration? I think the author, Tracy Torme, of this episode was inspired by the Eagles' "Hotel California". Specifically the lines: *"I was thinking to myself this could be heaven or this could be hell" *"So I called up the Captain, 'Please bring me my wine.'" *"He said 'We haven't had that spirit here since 1969.'" *"...you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave." If this could be confirmed it would make a nice addition to the background section of the article. : That's certainly a reach. --Alan 05:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC) ::Neither the Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion nor Captains' Logs: The Unauthorized Complete Trek Voyages note such a reference. But both note that the script was actually changed significantly from Torme's version, against his wishes (hence the pseudonym), and he disowned the final result.– Cleanse 10:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC) 91 Caddy Texas says he drove to Las Vegas from Texas in his new '91 Caddy. The costuming, scenery and dialogue would suggest the novel takes place well before 1991. Is this just a function of the bad writting of The Royale, or a mistake? Vince 08:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC) :I'm sure that in the 2030's, a '91 Caddy would be a cliche of goombah chic. All the rest of the costumes, scenery and dialogue were also cliches. Over-use of cliche is bad enough, mixing different cliches together is exceptionally bad. So, a bad novel. --TribbleFurSuit 16:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC) ::Ha Ha, sounds good. Vince47 Original script Is there any information available about what the script looked like before it was changed "significantly" and Torne disowned it? (see here) I'm asking this because I think the assistant-manager had a somewhat different role in this version; one that would explain why he had information the novel characters normally would not have. In the beginning of the episode the man already knows the away team was going to arrive ("three strangers") and he also knows there where going to be foreign investors in the end...--Jumja 16:21, December 14, 2009 (UTC) :I wrote up all I could find on this episode onto the page. Afraid it doesn't answer your specific question though. ;-) Given the script disputes and rush to complete, I'd say they were just oversights.– Cleanse ( talk | ) 05:49, December 15, 2009 (UTC) Fermat's Theorem Help Can someone write in the correct theorem? The original one when I tried to edit it contained jibberish at the end.--Obey the Fist!! 22:02, March 12, 2010 (UTC) Gul Damar confusion I was sure the actor that played the assistant manager was the one that played Gul Damar but it turns out it wasn't the case. DynV 08:43, April 29, 2011 (UTC) :OK. What's your point?--31dot 10:33, April 29, 2011 (UTC) I think the actors look alike. DynV 10:56, April 29, 2011 (UTC) :Please keep in mind that are not for sharing our opinions- they are for discussing changes to the article. Are you proposing some sort of change?--31dot 11:27, April 29, 2011 (UTC) I understand that if I think an episode isn't so interesting or that I find a special guest sexy that I should keep to myself but I was positive of the mistake until I saw the article ; isn't that noteworthy? DynV 11:44, April 29, 2011 (UTC) ::One person's confusion isn't noteworthy, no. :-) –Cleanse ( talk | ) 12:17, April 29, 2011 (UTC) :It might be noteworthy if two people had the same name (such as William O. Campbell and William Campbell) for purposes of differentiating them, but unless someone like Rick Berman or other Trek staff made a comment that two people looked alike(which I'm sure is not the case here), it's not noteworthy. Personally I think any resemblance is sleight at best- which is precisely why we don't note things without authoritative documentation.--31dot 13:02, April 29, 2011 (UTC) Well it's one of my habit to verify the guest stars that I think might have had another role. I guess I should look for a community of such people (joining the 10 other people that do that). :( I was just hoping to leave my comment in case someone else think alike and verify the discussion page. DynV 13:11, April 29, 2011 (UTC) :I understand, but talk pages are not for leaving comments not permitted in articles for the sole purpose of leaving them. I would suggest our MA Forums which is intended for all types of discussion.--31dot 13:19, April 29, 2011 (UTC)